TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > The Films > Indiana Jones 5
User Name
Password

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-24-2016, 08:32 PM   #476
Henry Jones VII
IndyFan
 
Henry Jones VII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Portugal
Posts: 236
I have to disagree, on the contrary i think this website is respectful to Ford and grateful of his work as indy.

Just my opinion of course.
Henry Jones VII is offline  
Old 06-24-2016, 08:50 PM   #477
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
Prove me wrong. This site has, especially in recent months, become a Harrison Ford hate site, has it not? Most of the blame for KOTCS' failures have (I guess due to ageism) been shifted to Harrison. He is viewed as the weak link of the series, and indeed on this forum, there is a retrospective hatred of him; Indiana Jones is not liked because of the actor, rather in spite of him; The mods and admins dance and sidestep around this fact.
I know I'm not always the most polite of mods, and this time I'm not even going to bother to try.

You're delusional. Go get some help.
Finn is offline  
Old 06-25-2016, 11:49 AM   #478
Face_Palm
IndyFan
 
Face_Palm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Sartorius
Looks like he's about to film The Fugitive Part 2.


That was the rumor for a while.
Face_Palm is offline  
Old 06-25-2016, 01:00 PM   #479
IAdventurer01
IndyFan
 
IAdventurer01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Wish I knew....
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Jones VII
I have to disagree, on the contrary i think this website is respectful to Ford and grateful of his work as indy.

Not only that, I think only fairly recently has there been a shift to accept the idea of someone other than Ford in the role. Even that's more an event to psyche ourselves up for the now inevitable future of a franchise we love without the actor who brought the leading role to life, which seem(s/ed) unfathomable to many here for quite some time.
IAdventurer01 is offline  
Old 06-25-2016, 05:06 PM   #480
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by IAdventurer01
Not only that, I think only fairly recently has there been a shift to accept the idea of someone other than Ford in the role.
And even that stems from a very simple fact: Harrison Ford is growing - no, he IS old.

We all age, and at some point things must come to an end. 5-10 years ago no one would have suggested that Ford should hang up the role. Of course, it's not impossible that he could deliver one more strong performance, but it still takes some navel-gazing to an astronomic degree to not understand why some people might have doubts about that.

The man will be 74 in a couple of weeks, and 76 by the time this movie is being canned. That's all. Stating that fact is not hate, and there's no sentiment that tries to blame Ford for KotCS' shortcomings. Those are delusions, plain and simple.

If you wish to see more Indiana Jones films after (or perhaps even starting from, we don't know yet) the fifth movie, you have to accept someone else in the role. Only reason not to accept it is if you don't wish to see more Indiana Jones films after Indy 5. But who are seriously calling themselves fans of the character and do not wish that?
Finn is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 08:32 AM   #481
Crack that whip
IndyFan
 
Crack that whip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Stone Mountain, GA
Posts: 1,723
Question

People who are more interested in seeing the character age than in more action-adventure, perhaps?
Crack that whip is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 09:37 AM   #482
Silvor
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Northern Norway
Posts: 135
People are just different.
Some like myself just don't like recasting of characters.
To me Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones is the only Indiana Jones.
Any other actor would not be Indiana Jones anymore.

To me it would be as if somebody who was not my brother said they were and dressed the same and sorta tried to act a little like my brother, but in the end they would just be some guy and not my brother.

But look at James Bond some would surely say.
But in Bonds case none of the different actors feel like they're the same character at all. They are all good in different ways, but the character they play are very different form each other.
You could have easily just changed some names around and they could be completely separate movies for the most part.

Or take the recasting of Clarice Starling in the movie Hannibal. It felt nothing like Jodie Fosters version.
But again, this is just my opinion on the matter, I understand that others may disagree and that's fine.

I just think we all should be respectful of each others views on the recasting Indy matter and not sink down to schoolyard levels of insulting and talking down to people with different opinions. Nothing good comes of that kind of stuff.
Silvor is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 10:09 AM   #483
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Believe it or not, I fit into both camps (*gasp* they said it couldn't be done!). I'm game for as much more Indy Ford does--but I'm also completely fine with a re-cast. Do I think it's smart business to only keep Ford in the role? No. Young people won't go see a franchise they've never heard of with an old actor they've never heard of. The future of any franchise is young people. You have to gain new fans as you go or the franchise ceases profitability.

A wide viewership is the name-of-the-game. In any medium. Any franchise that has stuck to its niche has never grown very far (Look at The Evil Dead franchise).

You have to remember that we're dealing with an age of young people who typically avoid "old" things. Not just old ideas, but movies that "seem" old. I've met many average young people who have that mindset. It's common. Even something new that's set in a much older time, they find boring (believe it or not). So add that + old actor they have no allegiance to? Why would they want to get into Indiana Jones?

They best way to overcome that hump is getting a new actor that they A) already like, or B) is up-and-coming/handsome for the ladies. Obviously, quality matters too, but before they decide if it has quality, you gotta get them into the theater seats! With a major "go-and-see" element for them, they can get 'into' the film enough to get past their reflexive "this is set like a million years ago, ew" mindset and then actually pay attention.

I never understand the fanboy mindset that freaks out over relatively minor change like re-casting. If they were going to turn the franchise into "Indiana Jones in the 22nd Century," then I'd get it. But all franchises need new blood once-in-a-while to foster the new generation of fans. That's just how it goes. You don't remain the prime audience forever. New generations deserve notice, too.

I used to really feel that if a role originated with an actor (Marty McFly/Michael J. Fox, Peter Venkman/Bill Murray) that it was wrong to re-cast--and if a role originated outside of film (Captain America, James Bond) than it was fair to re-cast because the role didn't belong to those actors anyway. I'm different, now. Just keep the spirit of the character/actor and I'm all-in. I don't understand why more people aren't like that--most people who ***** about "never re-cast" but accept it about Bond don't even know Bond actually comes from a series of books, for example.

The bottom line is: I want more Indiana Jones. If we have to cast a new actor to get more (as I've said before, Ford's not the longest serving Indy anyhow), then I'm fine with it.
Indy Jones is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 10:49 AM   #484
Raiders112390
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn
And even that stems from a very simple fact: Harrison Ford is growing - no, he IS old.

We all age, and at some point things must come to an end. 5-10 years ago no one would have suggested that Ford should hang up the role. Of course, it's not impossible that he could deliver one more strong performance, but it still takes some navel-gazing to an astronomic degree to not understand why some people might have doubts about that.

The man will be 74 in a couple of weeks, and 76 by the time this movie is being canned. That's all. Stating that fact is not hate, and there's no sentiment that tries to blame Ford for KotCS' shortcomings. Those are delusions, plain and simple.

If you wish to see more Indiana Jones films after (or perhaps even starting from, we don't know yet) the fifth movie, you have to accept someone else in the role. Only reason not to accept it is if you don't wish to see more Indiana Jones films after Indy 5. But who are seriously calling themselves fans of the character and do not wish that?

To your last point -
Here's why I don't want to see Indy films after 5:

For myself, Harrison was a big part of what made the role his own. I love the YIJC, but it isn't the same. Harrison Ford is no Pacino or DeNiro, and while he plays very similar characters in all his movies, it's part of his charm. He's one of the last throwbacks to a simpler age of Hollywood; He's the last of the Bogart-Gable-Wayne school of film antiheroes. I don't think anyone can really fill those shoes. At least, no actor I've seen out there who Disney would even consider. It's not like James Bond or Batman where there is wiggle room for differing interpretations of the character. A lot of the stuff we love about the films come from little things that are uniquely Ford - the mannerisms, the voice, the little quirks. If it had been any other actor in the role, we might not have that famous Swordsman scene in Raiders. Little things that cumulatively make up a big part of the overall picture of who Indiana Jones is.

I also don't trust Disney. I don't really want to see the series devolve further into something along the lines of The Mummy series - dumb action films that have a superficial veneer at best of archaeology. The original films were made by two geeks. George Lucas, for better or worse, did come up with really great stories and is well versed in mythology and the obscure, and also in the world of classic comic books and serials - these things helped lend the unique character and flavor that Raiders had. Spielberg's direction, especially in the first three, and his own unique story ideas, gave the series depth. They complemented eachother greatly. I don't think there's a single person at Disney who cares (or even really knows about) classic Hollywood pulp serials, vintage 1940s/1950s comics or the kind of things that inspired Indy. They just view it as an action film. I worry that further non-Ford films will be dumbed down and stripped of what made them unique akin to Abram's Star Trek reboots. They'll have the brand name and the main theme and will be set in the past but aside from that, it won't be Indy.

It's not "Ford Fetishism" so much as anti-Disney-ism. So much as sometimes it is better to let go and just let a series die. We had a great trilogy and one average followup. Let's not turn this into James Bond.
Raiders112390 is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 01:11 PM   #485
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
It's not "Ford Fetishism" so much as anti-Disney-ism. So much as sometimes it is better to let go and just let a series die. We had a great trilogy and one average followup. Let's not turn this into James Bond.
Somehow no one's bothered to comment on this point yet: How does the making of new films with a new actor discredit or invalidate the films that came before?

Of course no one will, because the answer is: In no manner. Whatever comes after Indy 5, it won't rob anybody the experiences and memories the preceding films brought. Just like KotCS did not make Raiders, ToD or LC any worse. Nor will anybody think any less of them even if the recast sequels turn out to be subpar. No one will be forced to watch the new entries either if they turn out to be bad.

Seriously. There is nothing to lose in wanting to see more being made. We'll still have the originals, they haven't gone anywhere. But in the odd chance things work out, and the reimagined pieces will turn out to be worthy entries to the series? Everybody wins.

Again, it takes special kind of harebrained logic to figure that making those new films is going to be a bad thing. Single-minded fanboyism at its worst.
Finn is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 01:20 PM   #486
Lambonius
IndyFan
 
Lambonius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 662
I absolutely love Harrison Ford. Do not get me wrong. BUT, I do not want to see an 80 year old Harrison Ford playing Indy. Full stop. At a certain point, such a movie would simply not contain the things that drew me in about the original trilogy. I want to see Indy in smart, fun, period piece movies, that are as much about (stylized) archeological investigative mystery solving as they are about action set-pieces. I want to see Indy as the in-his-prime, swaggering, intelligent character we grew up with. Put the right actor in that role, set the film during the late 1920s or early 30s (pre-Temple in the continuity) and take my goddamned money.

I personally think Disney is damn good at getting these things right though, and I'm not at all convinced that Indy 5 isn't going to feature some kind of split-narrative that introduces the new in-his-prime Indy actor. In fact, at this point, I'd say I'm actively hoping for it.
Lambonius is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 02:42 PM   #487
Z dweller
IndyFan
 
Z dweller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: The old colonel was right - but he never even got close...
Posts: 571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambonius
I absolutely love Harrison Ford. Do not get me wrong. BUT, I do not want to see an 80 year old Harrison Ford playing Indy. Full stop. At a certain point, such a movie would simply not contain the things that drew me in about the original trilogy. I want to see Indy in smart, fun, period piece movies, that are as much about (stylized) archeological investigative mystery solving as they are about action set-pieces. I want to see Indy as the in-his-prime, swaggering, intelligent character we grew up with. Put the right actor in that role, set the film during the late 1920s or early 30s (pre-Temple in the continuity) and take my goddamned money.

I personally think Disney is damn good at getting these things right though, and I'm not at all convinced that Indy 5 isn't going to feature some kind of split-narrative that introduces the new in-his-prime Indy actor. In fact, at this point, I'd say I'm actively hoping for it.
I agree with every word.

Thanks for expressing our common views so clearly and probably more eloquently than I could have done myself.
Z dweller is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 05:42 PM   #488
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 214
A question for those fans who feel only Harrison Ford can ever be Indy. Does that mean you dislike the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles? Do you dislike the opening of Last Crusade? Should those have never been made?

Because I can't reconcile the idea that somebody believes that only Harrison Ford can play Indy and that person also is a fan of YIJC or the opening of LC.
JasonMa is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 06:07 PM   #489
Duaner
IndyFan
 
Duaner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Somewhere Out There
Posts: 214
My feeling on the subject is that from 1935 onward Harrison Ford can be the only Indy. I am opposed to any recasting that places the new Indy within Harrison's timeline. 1916-1920 is Sean Patrick Flanery's time. So as long as any future films are set between 1921-1934, I am fine with seeing someone else play Indy.
Duaner is offline  
Old 06-26-2016, 09:55 PM   #490
Indy Jones
IndyFan
 
Indy Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duaner
My feeling on the subject is that from 1935 onward Harrison Ford can be the only Indy. I am opposed to any recasting that places the new Indy within Harrison's timeline. 1916-1920 is Sean Patrick Flanery's time. So as long as any future films are set between 1921-1934, I am fine with seeing someone else play Indy.

I'm cool with the actors corralled over specific eras. But, I would certainly dig seeing what Indy was up to in WWII at some point. '38-'57 is a huuuuuge blank space to explore.
Indy Jones is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 05:16 AM   #491
Sakis
TR.N Staff Member
 
Sakis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Greece
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duaner
My feeling on the subject is that from 1935 onward Harrison Ford can be the only Indy. I am opposed to any recasting that places the new Indy within Harrison's timeline. 1916-1920 is Sean Patrick Flanery's time. So as long as any future films are set between 1921-1934, I am fine with seeing someone else play Indy.

My sentiments exactly.
Sakis is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 05:22 AM   #492
Drones33
IndyFan
 
Drones33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: England
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duaner
My feeling on the subject is that from 1935 onward Harrison Ford can be the only Indy. I am opposed to any recasting that places the new Indy within Harrison's timeline. 1916-1920 is Sean Patrick Flanery's time. So as long as any future films are set between 1921-1934, I am fine with seeing someone else play Indy.

Well said Duaner.That`s it exactly.
Drones33 is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 08:55 AM   #493
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duaner
My feeling on the subject is that from 1935 onward Harrison Ford can be the only Indy. I am opposed to any recasting that places the new Indy within Harrison's timeline. 1916-1920 is Sean Patrick Flanery's time. So as long as any future films are set between 1921-1934, I am fine with seeing someone else play Indy.

Very well reasoned and insightful. I concur and applaud this reasonable solution.
Pale Horse is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 10:25 AM   #494
Walecs
IndyFan
 
Walecs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvor
People are just different.
Some like myself just don't like recasting of characters.
To me Harrison Ford's Indiana Jones is the only Indiana Jones.
Any other actor would not be Indiana Jones anymore.

To me it would be as if somebody who was not my brother said they were and dressed the same and sorta tried to act a little like my brother, but in the end they would just be some guy and not my brother.

I 100% agree with this and believe that the James Bond comparison is wrong.
Indiana Jones was born as a movie with Harrison Ford's face; people first met the character with his face and for 35 years now (40 by the time Indy 5 gets out) Indy will have been played by Ford only (except for his younger appeareances in the TV show, but still, how many are even aware of it existence? And even those who are still consider him a younger version of Ford's character, whereas each Bond actor played different characters. Sean Connery's Bond certainly isn't Pierce Brosnan's).
Bond, on the other hand was born as a literary character, it was first played by Barry Nelson in a TV movie but no one really identified him as James Bond, and only 8 years later the character was played by Connery and then recast only 7 years after Connery's first movie. Also, Bond movies didn't even have a continuity, with roles being recast every movie (Felix Leiter, Blofeld) or discontinuity nods (Blofeld not recognizing Bond even though they had met in the previous movie), whereas Indiana Jones always had.
And let's not forget that Bond recasting set the basis for the ridicolous "codename theory".

TL;DR: People have gotten used to Bond's recasting because it's been done for 50 years, whereas Indy was played by the same actor for 40 years.



Now, I don't care if Disney will recast the role in Indy 6, be it a prequel, a remake or a reboot. I just don't want any other actor playing Indy in the fifth movie (although I'm afraid Disney will push for one).
Walecs is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 11:17 AM   #495
Randy_Flagg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
I also don't trust Disney. I don't really want to see the series devolve further into something along the lines of The Mummy series - dumb action films that have a superficial veneer at best of archaeology.
Considering the fact that, to me, The Force Awakens felt more like a legitimate SW film than KOTCS felt like a legitimate Indy film, I'm feeling pretty optimistic about what might happen with Indy under Disney's ownership. Of course, it's no guarantee that future Indy movies will be good, but at the moment, I have no particular reason to really worry about Disney ruining it.

As for the "superficial veneer at best of archaeology," let's not kid ourselves into believing the original Indy films presented an-depth or evenly vaguely realistic depiction of archaeology. I do hope, though, that they continue to focus on artifacts that actually exist (or are at least part of real-world mythology.) I don't want them just making up completely random stuff (like the "Triangle" in the first Tomb Raider movie... ugh.)
Randy_Flagg is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 11:26 AM   #496
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,934
Wait. What. Somebody thinks that the Indiana Jones films offer some kind of in-depth depiction of archaeology? Uhm. Right.
Oh well, the Internet has certainly made it clear that this planet is full of people who think they know something about some subject or another when they really have no clue.

Unless you're an archaeologist yourself, watching a movie that has "realistic" depiction of archaeology would probably be as exciting as watching paint dry.
Finn is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 12:24 PM   #497
Randy_Flagg
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 490
Changing topics slighty...

Would anyone else prefer it if we don't get another scene of Indy teaching at the college? It's been done in three of the four movies already, and in LC and KOTCS, it already felt like it was being done mainly as an homage to Raiders. Doing it again in Indy 5 would just make it seem like they're really at a loss for ideas on how to tell the story.

I understand he's a professor (or a dean now), so it makes sense for him to be at the college, but I'd just prefer some variation in the narrative, and I don't want too many scenes that feel as if Spielberg is winking at the audience and saying, "Hey, remember this? Look, we're doing it again!"
Randy_Flagg is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 01:34 PM   #498
Walecs
IndyFan
 
Walecs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Flagg
Changing topics slighty...

Would anyone else prefer it if we don't get another scene of Indy teaching at the college? It's been done in three of the four movies already, and in LC and KOTCS, it already felt like it was being done mainly as an homage to Raiders. Doing it again in Indy 5 would just make it seem like they're really at a loss for ideas on how to tell the story.

I understand he's a professor (or a dean now), so it makes sense for him to be at the college, but I'd just prefer some variation in the narrative, and I don't want too many scenes that feel as if Spielberg is winking at the audience and saying, "Hey, remember this? Look, we're doing it again!"

I was thinking this yesterday, as someone said that they weren't particularly fond of Broadbent's acting in KotCS. Honestly I would be ok if they omitted it.
Walecs is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 01:40 PM   #499
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy_Flagg
Changing topics slighty...

Would anyone else prefer it if we don't get another scene of Indy teaching at the college? It's been done in three of the four movies already, and in LC and KOTCS, it already felt like it was being done mainly as an homage to Raiders. Doing it again in Indy 5 would just make it seem like they're really at a loss for ideas on how to tell the story.

I understand he's a professor (or a dean now), so it makes sense for him to be at the college, but I'd just prefer some variation in the narrative, and I don't want too many scenes that feel as if Spielberg is winking at the audience and saying, "Hey, remember this? Look, we're doing it again!"

Co-signed, emphatically.

A scene of him with students on a dig, or giving a lecture in some global capital, or visiting a museum abroad (maybe to repatriate an artifact!), would be perfectly welcome, but keep him out of school.
Attila the Professor is offline  
Old 06-27-2016, 02:06 PM   #500
Dr.Sartorius
IndyFan
 
Dr.Sartorius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
Co-signed, emphatically.

A scene of him with students on a dig, or giving a lecture in some global capital, or visiting a museum abroad (maybe to repatriate an artifact!), would be perfectly welcome, but keep him out of school.

It might be interesting also if during this dig/teaching scene that's when the villain or villains show up, everything goes to hell, and Indy and whoever else has to save the students.
Dr.Sartorius is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:57 PM.